Advertising on Television comes naturally to every advertiser. It must be a rare advertiser who has the money to do a TVC but doesn't. In this note though, I am not debating the merits or de-merits of TV advertising. I want to focus on those who do decide to advertise on TV - and how do they thereafter use the Television medium.
Now, there are various ways of interacting with target consumers on television, But, I am not going to discuss the possibilities and the pros and cons of the options. We will just talk about the most widely used method - of airing the Brand TVC in the commercial break. I believe that over 95% of the monies spent on TV advertising are on the TVC so, that is what we should try to unravel.
It starts with a client brief for airing the TVC and all sorts of action start at the media agency end to propose the operating levels, edits to be used, phasing of the edits, weeks on air, genre structure, etc etc. While, all of the above decisions have a rationale and a process - all science here is based on the aggregation of thousands of TVC exposures.
The TV Spot
Each insertion of the TVC is termed as a "spot". Each spot has views, termed as "impressions". The number of impressions depend on the number of people watching that channel at that point of time. These impressions expressed as a percentage of the total size of the target group are termed as the "rating or TVR" of the spot (simplistic view). So, there are multiple spots in a campaign, each resulting into impressions and delivering some TVRs and the sum total of these TVRs are what we call the GRPs (Gross Rating Points). As these GRPs accumulate over the campaign period, depending on the unique number of people who have seen the TVC and how many times each has seen the TVC, we derive the reach and frequency of the campaign. The rate at which a campaign reaches new people gives us what we call the reach build-up curve for the campaign.
Each insertion of the TVC is termed as a "spot". Each spot has views, termed as "impressions". The number of impressions depend on the number of people watching that channel at that point of time. These impressions expressed as a percentage of the total size of the target group are termed as the "rating or TVR" of the spot (simplistic view). So, there are multiple spots in a campaign, each resulting into impressions and delivering some TVRs and the sum total of these TVRs are what we call the GRPs (Gross Rating Points). As these GRPs accumulate over the campaign period, depending on the unique number of people who have seen the TVC and how many times each has seen the TVC, we derive the reach and frequency of the campaign. The rate at which a campaign reaches new people gives us what we call the reach build-up curve for the campaign.
You see that in all of the measures above, there is no qualitative value attached to an exposure. Each exposure is like a grain of sand - each one same as the other. And, that is what I think needs to be fundamentally understood and realized before we start debating on the operating levels of any campaign.
The Right GRP
And, this is where the dilemma lies as there are different schools of thought about this. On the one hand, is the belief that each exposure is the same while, on the other hand the difference of each exposure is appreciated.
The Right GRP
And, this is where the dilemma lies as there are different schools of thought about this. On the one hand, is the belief that each exposure is the same while, on the other hand the difference of each exposure is appreciated.
For those who believe in the former, life is easy and it is all simple arithmetic to build a campaign - the objective often being to get the maximum GRPs or Reach@Frequency in the minimum cost. They are ignore to the nature of the GRPs as long as the aggregate of the GRPs delivers to them their campaign operating levels. In achieving the cheapest - their is a conscious disregard to an extent to spillovers, extent of over/under exposures, market intricacies, etc.
If we look at the school of thought that recognizes the difference in the GRPs - their life is certainly more complex. The value delivered by each exposure depends on various dimensions of the exposure, such as the nature of programming, time of day, day of week, etc. These dimensions provide what we call "Context" for the exposure.
Understanding Context
The deliverable that we want from a TVC exposure is that it should be seen by the desired people and that these people should understand the messaging. So, the selection of the context should be based on whether it targets the right kind of people required for the brand in the right state of mind. The premise being that if the viewers are engaged in the context, they will also be engaged in the advertising and hence the probability for them to notice the TVC and to understand the TVC will be higher as against an exposure in a context which is not of high interest to them. Just like "a picture is worth a thousand words" - the right context is worth a whole lot of non-contextual GRPs.
Of course! there is always the pricing argument as most often than not, getting the right context is a compromise between cost, reach and quality.
The Measurement Challenge
But, all such discussions are limited by the nature of the syndicated TV measurement study which only provides data on the demographic audience so, one really does not know the equation between cost, reach and quality for the right brand audience. So, for an advertiser to have the right media plan one has to resort to planning metrics beyond what are provided by the syndicated TV measurement system.
The current TV system never advocated absolute reliance on its metrics for constructing the TV plan. All it provides are measures that are an aid to creating and measuring the TV plan deliveries, and on limited dimensions. These dimensions are adequate for trading of TV GRPs as the currency. However, it would be an injustice to media planing to rely just on this data for arriving at the construct of the plan.
Thus, the plan is only as good as the logic for its construct. And, once we have the construct one needs to translate this construct into a plan based on the limited dimensions available in the TV planning system. While, many attempt to do this but, in an effort to optimize investments in the TV planning system they often loose the construct of the media plan.
To illustrate - do we optimize on reach for the demographic audience as available in the measurement system or do we build in a factor of the reach among the real brand audience? Do we evaluate the efficiency of the plan on the cost per rating in the demographic audience or the cost per rating in the desired audience?
Optimizing the Construct
The plan optimization needs to go beyond the TV measurement system to draw a balance between - total plan GRPs, total cost of the plan, cost per desired audience (not just the demographic audience) of the plan, reach and reach build-up in the desired audience, the engagement score of the plan, spillover in terms of audience & over-exposure, etc.
Understanding Context
The deliverable that we want from a TVC exposure is that it should be seen by the desired people and that these people should understand the messaging. So, the selection of the context should be based on whether it targets the right kind of people required for the brand in the right state of mind. The premise being that if the viewers are engaged in the context, they will also be engaged in the advertising and hence the probability for them to notice the TVC and to understand the TVC will be higher as against an exposure in a context which is not of high interest to them. Just like "a picture is worth a thousand words" - the right context is worth a whole lot of non-contextual GRPs.
Of course! there is always the pricing argument as most often than not, getting the right context is a compromise between cost, reach and quality.
The Measurement Challenge
But, all such discussions are limited by the nature of the syndicated TV measurement study which only provides data on the demographic audience so, one really does not know the equation between cost, reach and quality for the right brand audience. So, for an advertiser to have the right media plan one has to resort to planning metrics beyond what are provided by the syndicated TV measurement system.
The current TV system never advocated absolute reliance on its metrics for constructing the TV plan. All it provides are measures that are an aid to creating and measuring the TV plan deliveries, and on limited dimensions. These dimensions are adequate for trading of TV GRPs as the currency. However, it would be an injustice to media planing to rely just on this data for arriving at the construct of the plan.
Thus, the plan is only as good as the logic for its construct. And, once we have the construct one needs to translate this construct into a plan based on the limited dimensions available in the TV planning system. While, many attempt to do this but, in an effort to optimize investments in the TV planning system they often loose the construct of the media plan.
To illustrate - do we optimize on reach for the demographic audience as available in the measurement system or do we build in a factor of the reach among the real brand audience? Do we evaluate the efficiency of the plan on the cost per rating in the demographic audience or the cost per rating in the desired audience?
Optimizing the Construct
The plan optimization needs to go beyond the TV measurement system to draw a balance between - total plan GRPs, total cost of the plan, cost per desired audience (not just the demographic audience) of the plan, reach and reach build-up in the desired audience, the engagement score of the plan, spillover in terms of audience & over-exposure, etc.
Unless, we build beyond the demographic measurement, we may be very happy with the plan deliveries but, what the campaign delivers for business is quite another matter - often not measured, if measured not calibrated and if calibrated, often based on the same belief of sameness of GRPs. Those who have been able to unravel the power of the context of TV GRPs are the ones who will get the most out of TV advertising.
The rest will keep rolling the drum without achieving the real objectives of the brand.. at least not in the most efficient way.
The rest will keep rolling the drum without achieving the real objectives of the brand.. at least not in the most efficient way.
2 comments:
We need to bring about a mind shift among TV Advertisers who look at GRPs generically as an input in achieving sales goals...that attribution itself is dubious. We must emphasise on outcomes by proving what certain kind of GRPs can actually do or not do. In days to come when programmatic buying on TV might be at the forefront, the divide between meaningful and quantitative GRPs would only get worse as clients would enjoy the 'short term' gains of even greater efficiency. A good start for us would be to create metrics to create 'Quality Score' for campaign GRPs.
Absolutely agree with your thoughts Sridhar. While, in various ways we are doing enough and maybe far more than many others but, yes as an industry there needs to be a change in the ecosystem for investing in more relevant GRPs. Thanks for your comnments.
Post a Comment